This commentary first appeared on Vermont Public Radio on October 27, 2010.

In the lead up to Election Day,
political battles are raging ever hotter. Commentator Susan Clark suggests ways
that voters can avoid a bunker mentality.

Every day, we’re bombarded with political ads. Even the so-called
facts are overwhelming – candidates refer to so many contradictory studies, I
feel like I’m under siege.

I like to think I’ll battle it out and choose candidates who best
reflect my views. But according to new research in cultural cognition, I might
not even bother. If I’m a typical American, I’ll find simpler ways to pick a
winner.

Before voters even consider a candidate’s platform, we’ve received
dozens of coded messages. We each have our own cultural orientation
interpreting candidates’ signals. We hear a candidate’s views on one hot-button
issue – or notice whether a candidate pronounces words as we do, or even what
his wife wears – and we might allow these to stand in for learning his views on
the deeper economic, environmental or social issues we thought we cared
most about.

This “cognitive cuing” has happened since time immemorial. But
surely we can override such tribal urges. Can’t we?

In 2006, brain researchers at Emory University wired up some
voters to find out. A group of self-described Republicans were subjected to
unflattering information about Republican candidates. According to their MRIs,
the Republicans’ brains under-processed information that contradicted their
bias – in fact, the pre-frontal cortex, responsible for conscious reasoning,
hardly even fired. Then, when shown information boosting their candidates, the
emotional center of their brains lit up -- essentially rewarding themselves for
ignoring input that contradicted their beliefs.

Most of us won’t question a candidate’s so-called facts – even if
they’re increasingly unbelievable – as long as his or her hairstyle and glasses
look trustworthy to our demographic.

That’s why some political professionals reduce issues to
polarizing extremes. We’re easier to manipulate when our brains are shut down.

But happily, people of good will can also use this research.
Because it turns out that the great majority of Americans don’t live at
polarized extremes. Most of us want the same things from our political system –
security and economic health. We’re busy, thank you very much, but we agree on
a lot more than we disagree on.

Then, we’ll skip the grandstanding, and engage in face-to-face
deliberation. Where respectful, open-minded dialogue occurs, research shows
that humans can overcome cultural biases. We’ve all seen it happen – a new
neighbor, a fresh-faced exchange student, or a conversation at town meeting
changes our mind or expands our world.

We’ve can’t live in this no-man’s-land of stereotypes and sound
bites. We’ve reached a sort of Cold War of political organizing – both sides
have escalated equally, and it’s a war no one will win. I’m ready to tear down
the wall -- and start talking.

​Slow Democracy is a site dedicated to local decision making that is inclusive, deliberative, and citizen-powered. It is based on the book Slow Democracy: Rediscovering Community, Bringing Decision Making Back Home by Susan Clark and Woden Teachout (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2012).